Warren Farrell: Men Are Oppressed by Women's Butts

Yesterday Warren Farrell – the intellectual grandfather of the Men’s Rights movement, the man who single-handedly came up with probably half of the terrible arguments that are endlessly rehashed daily in the manosphere – went to Reddit and proclaimed “ask me anything!”

And so we, and a lot of other people, did. And he even answered a couple of the questions I posted here yesterday – though as I sort of suspected he pointedly ignored the questions about his incest research. Still, there were so many astounding things said in that discussion, both by Farrell himself and by his various supporters, that it’s going to take a couple of posts to get to them all.

Let’s just start with the ass question, shall we? Because there was nothing quite so astounding in that whole sprawling thread, or at least the portion of it that I managed to read, as “Dr.” Farrell’s – he has a PhD in political science –answer to the ass question.

That’s right. Warren Farrell literally believes that heterosexual men are powerless in the face of SEXY FEMALE BUTTS. They are BUTT HYPNOTIZED by women’s shapely buttocks, virtual prisoners to the power of DAT ASS.

Not only that, but they are slaves as well, forced to earn more money than women so that they can “pay for women’s drinks, dinners and diamonds.” Who knew that the wage gap was caused by the ass crack?

We like big butts, and we cannot lie. But that way tyranny, I espy.

Only if men can free themselves from the TYRANNY OF THE BUTT they can “have more control over [their] lives, and therefor [sic] more real power.”

But who will write the new Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of Queen Ass?

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for horny dudes to get rid of the boners which those ladies have caused with their smokin hot dumpers and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the babies who have got back requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation, and that is, ladies we can’t think straight if we’re looking at DAT ASS all the time.

Oh, but “Dr.” Farrell is worried about the ladies, too. I mean, he said so:

it’s in women’s interests for me to confront this. many heterosexual women feel imprisoned by men’s inability to be attracted to women who are more beautiful internally even if their rear is not perfect.

Yes, you’re beautiful on the inside to m….holy crap did you see the ass on HER!?

Now, this isn’t entirely new. As I’ve noted before, Farrell makes a version of this argument in his book, talking about secretaries manipulating their bosses with their “miniskirt power, cleavage power, and flirtation power,” [p. 21] describing “female beauty” as “the world’s most potent drug,” [p. 85], and arguing that “many men feel ‘under the influence’ the moment they see a beautiful woman.” [p. 320]

But these, er, arguments weren’t the central focus of his rambling treatise. Now, at the age of 70, by not only putting a naked ass on the cover of his book, but also by defending it in such ludicrously overblown terms, he’s decided to put this unsolicited update from his penis at the center of his argument about the alleged powerlessness of men.

Yep, the closest thing that the Men’s Rights movement has to an intellectual heavyweight seems to think that the most pressing issue facing men today is how sad and mad and confused they feel because they can’t immediately have sex with every hot piece of ass that walks by (and, presumably, the women attached to these asses).

It’s really hard to find a better symbol of the sexual entitlement – and sexual resentment – that lies at the heart of the Men’s Rights movement than this.

Oh, and by the way, my new book is still available for purchase. So far I have sold no copies. Which might have something to do with the $1000 price tag, and also the fact that I haven’t actually written it. But you’ve got to admit the cover is pretty good.

In case you needed a clearer explanation of the power of women’s bodacious hineys, one Redditor by the name of Doldenberg has scienced things up for us and provided us all this useful graph. First, his brief explanation:

Being a brave Alpha from TRP, I have found the solution to the evident misandrist oppression of men by cute butt owners meaning owners of cute butts, not cute owners of butts, or butt owners of cute, or…, that is, ranking butts on an objective BMV (butt market value) scale. I’ve made the data up in my head, but it seems plausible. According to this data, the butt loses BMV when having sat on to many objects, while it’s cuteness only works as a limiting factor. I have made a handy graph[1] with supporting data and sources to explain my theory.

You don’t have to read it if you don’t want to. I repeat what I said to Bina: we got away, we kicked his ass, I got to make him sob like a child and claim I ruined his life

Well, I thought it went without saying that I do want to read them, hehe (I didn’t chime in when you asked because I got here when you had already published the post). I have been increasingly interested in abusers’ behavior and “logics” ever since I shifted my activism from worker unions to gender.

However, I’m especially sensitive to this kind of reading, since I’ve been doing therapy for over 6 months now, recovering from many non-sexual abuses from my childhood, and from “romantic” relationships (including psychological abuse from a BDSM partner). So I need to choose my moments wisely.

I’m very glad to hear you were able to turn the tables, and move on to a better life. Also, loving hubbies ROCK… I’m in my first-ever healthy relatonship and it is as helpful as therapy to get over all the shit I had to deal with.

I don’t know how to finish this comment now, but I think I could use a big hug right now.

While I was working on them, hubby mostly let me be, but at one point he came in and was like, “I need to hug you, even though I know you’re okay. Please let me hug you?” And I gave him pats to reassure him that I was truly okay and it was all a long time ago.

After bath time in my house, the kids get to have “naked time”. They run around nude screaming with glee. I’m rendered powerless in the face of their adorable butts. So flippin cute, I can’t stand it!!!! I’m the parent but they have the REAL power. I work to support them. They must KNOW and are wielding their butt power to get candy. Ok this sarcastic comment is getting creepy, I’ll stop.

That’s right. Warren Farrell literally believes that heterosexual men are powerless in the face of SEXY FEMALE BUTTS. They are BUTT HYPNOTIZED by women’s shapely buttocks, virtual prisoners to the power of DAT ASS.

Remind me again – when was Shakira voted president of the world?

‘Cos, you know, as a straight male, I think she shakes her booty better than anyone I’ve ever seen – but I’ve yet to even buy an album or put one of her songs in my playlist.

I hope this is ok: I’d like to just leave some hugs here for whomever. Lots of yikes going on.

Canuck, are you ok? Did you reach your dr?

LBT, thank you for sharing and holy crap that’s awful stuff. Also, 5 years is no big deal at certain ages (say, 23 & 28), but 16 & 21 is not one of those combos. Glad he’s gone, you’re doing well & have a true loving relationship.

I oppressed a man with my butt once. It was an accident, and I kinda sat on him the wrong way, and his gentleman parts were in the wrong place, and I oppressed him. Pretty hard. But I stopped almost at once.

Also, 5 years is no big deal at certain ages (say, 23 & 28), but 16 & 21 is not one of those combos.

Yeah, no kidding. Hubby is significantly older than me (we got together when I was 19 and he was 27) but the difference was, he didn’t treat me like a child or a sex toy. He treated me with respect and dignity, and knew when I knew something better than he did.

Also, you know, by that point I had lived independently, held down multiple jobs, been able to vote… you know, BE A FUCKING ADULT.

I know I’m a little late in the comments section, but I only read this website occasionally. I don’t recall Warren mentioning ‘oppression’ in any of those quotes. It may be sarcasm on David’s part.

That being said I do think Warren’s take on male sexuality is a little melodramatic and old-fashioned. I’d like to think male sexuality isn’t a complete handy-cap, as it certainly isn’t for me. But I can’t speak for all men, obviously.

Oppression is all about power dynamics – when one group has all the power and exercises it to deprive another group of power and agency, that’s oppression. Farrell’s book is called “The Myth of Male Power” and features an illustration of a woman’s backside. Farrell has stated clearly that he thinks men are powerless in the presence of an attractive female body (to the extent that part of their brain shuts down, apparently, because science), so it’s really women who are calling the shots and using the powerlessness of men to their advantage. That’s essentially the core of Farrell’s message. He couches it in a lot of waffle, and I imagine he consciously avoids saying “women oppress men with their butts” because even he can hear how ridiculous that sounds.

Ok I read the part about feeling powerless in the presence of a beautiful woman.

But with the particular quotes highlighted I don’t see him blaming women for any of it. It looks pretty clear he’s suggesting men invest more in themselves rather than the adoration of women they desire.

Honestly I could be wrong, as maybe he’s obfuscating and I’m taking him too literally?

Honestly, my biggest problem with Warren Farrell’s point about women’s behinds is that it is intended to tell women “You need to be grateful to us straight men because we struggle to not be overpowered by the sight of your butts.” That is undeniably a misogynistic rape culture narrative because it supports the notion that a man’s libido is difficult if not impossible to control and that women should just expect to be sexually abused and harassed by men. The notion that women oppress straight men with their shapely behinds is amusing and also indicative of misogyny, but it’s just one part of Farrell’s reprehensible claim, IMO.

I’d like to think male sexuality isn’t a complete handy-cap, as it certainly isn’t for me.

I hoped you were being humourous here because the idea that male sexuality is a handicap? Seriously?

But with the particular quotes highlighted I don’t see him blaming women for any of it. It looks pretty clear he’s suggesting men invest more in themselves rather than the adoration of women they desire.

What he is saying with this & his book title is that it is a myth that women as a class are oppressed by men as a class. That actually women have the power in this dynamic because men desire women’s bodies. Thus (het) men’s sexual desires cancel out every other form of power (financial, political, societal) because a shapely butt distracts the man. That powerful men occasionally allowing a woman some morsel of power because they desire her means that women hold all the power.

“Thanks, @Deor, good to know you’re a troll rather than a friendly de-lurker.”

Why? By the looks of it, Warren Farrel was making that assertion before I said anything about it. And I was for the most part disagreeing with him, as he seems to think it renders men of any autonomy. His attitude seems more troll-like to me…

What he is saying with this & his book title is that it is a myth that women as a class are oppressed by men as a class. That actually women have the power in this dynamic because men desire women’s bodies. Thus (het) men’s sexual desires cancel out every other form of power (financial, political, societal) because a shapely butt distracts the man. That powerful men occasionally allowing a woman some morsel of power because they desire her means that women hold all the power.

He also studiously neglects to mention that women’s sexuality — or more plainly, their SEX — is used against women all the time. The male boss has all the power to hire and fire, so of course he’s going to put a pretty receptionist in the front lobby, and have a sexy secretary whom he’s constantly pressuring to “put out”, or be fired — her “choice”. He’s not going to hire a male receptionist or personal secretary (even though he could), much less a plain, unsexy woman whose pants he’s not going to even want to get into, no matter how good she is at the actual job. That’s the reality of male power, but he pretends that it’s women who have all the power simply because of Dat Ass.

Meanwhile, female bosses are fewer and further between, by far. And they don’t hire or fire based on sex and looks, when they have that power at all. The number of cases of male employees sexually harassed, quid pro quo, by women in charge, is vanishingly small.

And yet, Farrell wants us to believe that women hold all the “real” power. To do so, of course, presupposes that we must ignore where the real power actually resides…and it’s not in some shapely lady’s butt.

Deor, if you’re our latest troll, try to be entertaining while you’re here. Seriously, how is it possible for each new troll to get more and more boring when they’re not being downright creepy or offensive?

he was making the assumption that men are powerless b/c some women are attractive. but it’s a faulty assumption. any “power” you get from someone finding you attractive is granted by them and can be taken away at any time. the power to be objectified isn’t real power.

and yup, male sexuality is definitely not a handicap. the only thing that’s a handicap is… an actual disability 😉

@Deor, you know that this isn’t a competition for you to be more of a troll than WTF, right?

But with the particular quotes highlighted I don’t see him blaming women for any of it. It looks pretty clear he’s suggesting men invest more in themselves rather than the adoration of women they desire.

Honestly I could be wrong, as maybe he’s obfuscating and I’m taking him too literally?

That would be yes and yes. Take a look at the rest of the comment thread.

The male boss has all the power to hire and fire, so of course he’s going to put a pretty receptionist in the front lobby, and have a sexy secretary whom he’s constantly pressuring to “put out”, or be fired — her “choice”.

Yup. Be jobless or be raped. That’s such power, that is.

@Deor, you might want to remember that WTF is also a rape apologist and has said that women who see being fucked by their fathers as negative are just saying that ‘cos society tells them to. He’s an out-and-out misogynist and pedophilia apologist; he just hides it under mealy-mouthed phrasing.

Yes I do remember that (about the daughter-father comments, ick). I don’t really feel like defending him now. I just got caught up in that quote and probably derailed the comment thread needlessly. Sorry about that.

(By the way I just worked out WTF stands for his initials. I didn’t know his middle name. I thought you were referring to a prior commenter you had a run-in with).

Wow! David, you are so wise! I had no idea that ad hominem fallacies are now valid forms of argument.

Hey, you know what, I think your overwhelming, awe inducing intellect is surely going to waste on silly shit like logic. I mean, when I read the sentence “…the heterosexual man’s attraction to the naked female body…” I stupidly thought it meant male sexual attraction to women. It really took that luminous star of a brain of yours to connect that missing piece of the picture of a woman’s butt on the cover. You know, I read The Myth of Male power, and I never took notice of the cover.

I think it’s the patriarchy that made me miss the picture on the cover. I mean, “don’t judge a book by its cover” is a clearly oppressive patriarchal structure that I, get this, SYSTEMATICALLY, apply! Holy fuck! You just blew my mind David!

Serious, David, I’m telling you, you need to take the next several years off from work that is so clearly beneath you and go write the follow up to Plato’s Republic. I mean, The Republic is subtitled “On Justice”, and you, as a Social Justice Warrior, and an intellect rivaling that of any man born, surely must have a better account than that “father of western thought” asshole Socrates!

So please David, don’t say no! Stop writing these articles, and go write The Republic II: On Social Justice.

Roger provides another fine example of “if you’re sarcastic and also stupid, it just ends up confusing.”

I mean, when I read the sentence “…the heterosexual man’s attraction to the naked female body…” I stupidly thought it meant male sexual attraction to women. It really took that luminous star of a brain of yours to connect that missing piece of the picture of a woman’s butt on the cover.

I think he’s saying “if you put a picture of a hot female ass on something marketed to straight men, that has nothing to do with the fact that straight men are attracted to hot female asses?”

Ha ha, David should write the follow up to Plato’s Republic. Good one, Roger. You really know how to take down these Social Justice Warriors, who of course hate Socrates because they don’t love the “father of Western thought” like reactionary MRAs do.

Donate to the Mammoth!

We Hunted the Mammoth is an ad-free, reader-supported publication written and published by longtime journalist David Futrelle, who has been tracking, dissecting, and mocking the growing misogynistic backlash since 2010, exposing the hateful ideologies of Men’s Rights Activists, incels, alt-rightists and many others.

We depend on support from people like you. Please consider a donation or a monthly pledge by clicking below! there's no need for a PayPal account.

Send comments, questions, and tips for stories to me at dfutrelle@gmail.com, or by clicking here